MOHAN DAS N. HEGDE (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR.

Citation: [2005] 2 S.C.R. 1128 · Decided: 18-03-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.N. VARIAVA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MOHAN DAS N. HEGDE (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. 
v. 
ST A TE OF KARNA T AKA AND ANR. 
MARCH 18, 2005 
B 
[S.N. VARIA VA, DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
Karnataka Motor Vehicle Taxation (Amendment) Act, 1997-
Classification of vehicles based on value for levy of 'life time tax' -
Reasonableness of-Held : As the State is competent to levy and collect tax 
C under Entry 57 List-II of the seventh schedule to the Constitution, levy based 
on value cannot be struck down as unreasonable. 
Appellant had challenged the validity of Karnataka Motor Vehicle 
taxation (Amendment) Act, 1997 on the ground that levy of'life time tax' 
D on the value of the car exceeding 1500 CC is arbitrary, discriminatory 
and hit by Article 14 of the Constitution. Single Judge held that vehicle 
costing Rs. 6 lacs and above constituted a different class by itself and 
therefore, the levy cannot be said to be discriminatory. Division Bench 
upheld the same. Hence the present appeal. 
E 
Appellant contended that the said Act has made an unreasonable 
classification between the vehicles costing more than Rs. 6 lacs and vehicles 
costing less than Rs. 6 lacs; that the motor vehicle taxes are compensatory 
in nature and can only be levied on the basis of the capacity of the engine, 
the weight of the vehicle and the floor area, as such parameters have nexus 
wif.h the user and maintenance of the road; that by the introduction of 
F one more parameter namely, the "value" of the vehicle, the impugned levy 
has ceased to be regulatory/compensatory in nature, and has no nexus with 
the wear and tear of. the public road and hence the impugned Act was 
arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 
G 
H 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: The classification under Karnataka Motor Vehicle Taxation 
(Amendment) Act, 1997 is based on value of vehicles for the levy of life 
time tax and indicates measure or a rate of tax applied differently on 
different vehicles depending upon various circumstances. Since there is 
1128 
-
MOHAN DAS N. HEGDE (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. v. STATE [KAPADIA, J.J 1129 
competence to levy and collect the tax under Entry 57 List-II of the seventh 
schedule to the Constitution, the levy cannot be struck down only on the 
ground that the incidence of the tax falls differently on different categories 
of the vehicles. The burden has to be distributed on different classes of 
vehicles or on different persons who owned the vehicles. It is not for the 
Court to decide the impact of such tax on ·different persons. (1130-D-F) 
--
The State of Tamil Nadu v. M Krishnappan and Anr etc., Civil appeal 
Nos. (1869)-(1880) of (2000) decided by supreme Court on March 18, 
(2005), relied on 
A· 
B 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7398 of2000. C 
From the Judgment amd Order dated 23.2.2000 of the Karnataka High 
Court in W.A .No. 7000 of 1999. 
Ms. Kiran Suri and Himanshu Bhuttanand Mali Santosh, for the 
Appellant. 
Anil Mishra, Sanjay R.Hegde and A. Rohan Singh, for the respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
D 
KAPADIA, J. This civil appeal by grant of special leave is filed by 
assessee against the judgment and order dated 23 .2.2000 of the Karnataka E 
High Court in Writ Appeal No. 7000 of 1999 upholding the constitutional 
validity of Karnataka Motor Vehicle Taxation (Amendment) Act, 8 of 1997 
(hereinafter referred to as "the said 1997 Act"). 
The appellant was the owner of "Opel Astra" which was taxed on 
"value basis" under the impugned 1997 Act. The said 1997 Act was F 
challenged on the ground that the levy of "life time tax" on the value of the 
car exceeding 1500 CC was arbitrary, discriminatory and hit by article 14 of 
the Constitution. 
By order dated 29.6.1999, the learned Single Judge held that the vehicle G 
costing Rs. 6 lacs and above constituted a different class by itself and, therefore, 
levy cannot be said to be discriminatory and violative of article 14 of the 
Constitution. 
Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant herein carried the matter 
in appeal to the Division Bench, which, while upholding the decision of the H 
1130 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2005) 2 S.C.R. 
A learned Single Judge, dismissed the writ appeal. Hence, this civil appeal. 
Mrs. Kiran Suri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant 
submitted that the impugned 1997 Act, as amended, violated article 14 
inasmuch as the said Act has made an unreasonable classification between 
the v

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.